freight business ifactionisnot taken Impact and consequencesforthe rail Relevance andimportance Actions proposedbyRUs

Requirements of Railwaytakings Unde r for the Implementationopean of Eur Rail Freight Corridors Table of contents

03 Executive Summary 04-05 06-07 Transport Market Studies bottlenecks 08-09 10-11 Regulatory and operational Coordination of (cross border) infrastructure works 12-13 14-15 Traffic management Use of Path procedures Coordination System 18-19 20-21 Definition of the role Organisational of the C-OSS issues 22-23 24-25 Harmonised corridor parameters document 26-27 28 Other & Conclusion Conclusions 29 30-31 Glossary of Abbreviations Workplan & Acronyms

Warning: No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced or distributed by any means whatsoever, including electronic, except for private and individual use, without the express permission of the International Union of Railways (UIC). The same applies for translation, adaptation or transformation, arrangement or reproduction by any method or procedure whatsoever. The sole exceptions - noting the author’s name and the source - are «analyses and brief quotations justified by the critical, argumentative, educational, scientific or informative nature of the publication into which they are incorporated» (Articles L 122-4 and L122-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code). Requirements of Railway Undertakings for the Implementation © International Union of Railways (UIC) of European Rail Freight Corridors Paris, January 2014 ISBN 978-2-7461-2248-2 2 - 3 and commontoallthetopics,are: of theRFCs, to thefurtherdevelopment Of particularimportance „ each. A summaryspreadsheetofthesetopicsandtimescaleforimplementationisappended. for identified are proposals implementation and traffic freight rail developing for importance their of terms in analysed are These of prioritytopicswhichneedtobeprogressed. RCA, RC B Hungaria, Logistics, SBB, CP, PKP, in cooperationwiththeInternationalUnionof Railways (UIC), have preparedalist (RU),DBSR,BLS, In Railway Undertakings order to further theprogressmade,following Trenitalia, SNCF, CFLMM, Captrain, 10 November2013. on were launched some RFCservices made, and been already creation of RFC websites.Importantprogresshastherefore the and information, traffic of exchange and allocation for processes andcomputersystems of harmonised development by IMs, Plans Implementation drafting ofInvestmentand and and advisorygroups,completionof Transport MarketStudies ofsomeRFCsandrelatedboard RFCs, withtheestablishment ofthe Progress hasbeenmadetowardstheimplementation European railfreightnetwork. corridors (RFC)witha view to the development of a competitive rail freight the processforestablishmentof international of22September2010describes (EU) No913/2010 Regulation lower cost. friendly modeswhichofferto use otherlessenvironmentally customers returningorcontinuing at a betterendtoreliability topics willhaveanimpactonrail’s costs and performance, thetwomost important factors on modalchoice. This willresultin RUs’of usetoallow with conditions in these across borders.Failureto makeprogress and seamlessly freighttrainstorunreliably The overall objectiveof the RFCs is to increase railfreight’s market share of European freighttransport by providing a network establishment ofworkinggroupsdealingwithspecifictopicsinvolving RUsandIMs. and the Boards of RUsat theManagement greater involvement through beimplemented RUs recommendthattheseshould „ sufficiently takenintoaccount industry andendusercustomersis that theRUshaveoflogistics depth understandingandknowledge (IM) andRUs,toensurethatthein- between theInfrastructureManagers The needforbettercooperation „ „ routes feeder andparallel/diversionary along RFC networks,withotherRFCs, and seamless transport along the entire along andacrossallRFCstoensure between IMs Better cooperation „ „ regular basis. on a and lessonslearntareexchanged mechanism toensurethatbestpractice routes, witha diversionary including andacrossallRFCs and systems along administrative processes,procedures of and technical, operational Cross borderharmonisation

Executive Syummar Relevance and importance

Each RFC Management Board is required to undertake a Transport Market Study, which analyses the demand for international traffic using the RFC, covering the different types of traffic. It should also include a socio-economic cost-benefit analysis, and plays a central role in the implementation of that RFC, in that it:

„„Determines short and long term planning, particularly for investment and path allocation

„„Allows bottlenecks to be identified, and the location and level of amelioration required

„„Contributes to the Implementation Plan which defines objectives, investment and capacity

„„Will be taken into account for the construction of the Pre-arranged Paths (PaP) and the definition of reserve capacity, and

„„Should identify where there are suitable alternative routes to avoid “irrational” transport routes and possible bottlenecks.

Requirements of Railway Undertakings for the Implementation of European Rail Freight Corridors

4 - 5 Actions proposed c. Establish working groups with RUs to discuss traffic forecasts, types by RUs of traffic, traffic flows and related IMs should issues from an early stage until final publication, to ensure that the a. Improve quality and accuracy of RUs’ in-depth understanding of their Transport Market Studies, which have customers, logistics flows and costs, is been completed for RFCs 1, 2 and incorporated. Important developments 6, and started for RFC 8. RUs have in the worldwide logistics , expressed concern about the validity including changes in the choice of of some of the estimated flows, which: ports by shipping companies, and the estimated cost of rail freight »» Have omitted important markets and operations, have a fundamental key feeder flows, impact on future RFC corridor flows, »» Are double counted, with the same and must be included. flows accounted for on more than d. Take into account the lists of short one RFC and long term bottlenecks, planned »» Have not sufficiently engaged RUs investment plans, construction works, who have an in-depth knowledge and saturation periods in a 24 hour and understanding of the logistics period. t ma r ket studies sector and end user customers. e. Develop a common transport b. Take into account the opinions of modelling approach for all RFCs. existing and potential RUs and A coordinated transport modelling Authorised Applicants (AA) of that approach which is used on and RFC, in particular on: includes all RFCs will allow more accurate results to be achieved. A »» Journey times classic transport nodal model, which »» Punctuality allows weighting of alternative routes rather than Corridor studies, may be »» Availability of interoperable rolling required. stock Tr anspo r »» Simplified procedures for obtaining paths

»» Punctuality record

»» Train cancellation history.

Impact and consequences for the rail freight business if action is not taken

Accurate knowledge and understanding of the network and the traffic flows is essential for short and long term planning of investment and path allocation. Based on these results and the estimated level of traffic volumes, IMs will decide on the extent of and location of bottlenecks on their networks, what investment is required, and how paths should be allocated. They have a direct impact on the Implementation and Investment Plans.

Inaccurate traffic forecasts may lead to an incorrect assessment of the location of bottlenecks and levels of investment required. Relevance and importance

In accordance with the Regulation, IMs must:

„„Identify and describe bottlenecks on each RFC for the Implementation Plan, and

„„Prepare a plan for the management of the capacity of the forecast freight including removal of identified bottlenecks for the Investment Plan. This information is also necessary for the preparation of reliable catalogue paths and diversionary paths.

It is vital that bottlenecks are:

„„Correctly identified and described in relation to the existing and forecast traffic flows, as they impact on the performance

„„Made readily accessible to RUs by the IMs

„„Regularly updated.

Actions proposed by RUs

IMs should:

a. Use existing practices, such as the RailNetEurope (RNE) guidelines and/or Forum Train Europe (FTE) requirements to ensure that options for alternative routes are fully considered in the Implementation Plan.

b. Establish dedicated working groups to examine infrastructure bottlenecks involving RUs for each RFC at an early stage to:

»» Develop complete and up to date lists of bottlenecks, and gain understanding of the relative level of impact of each on the end user customer

»» Determine, prioritise and discuss timescales for the list of bottlenecks

»» Coordinate work between the infrastructure bottlenecks and the impact of construction works (long and short term). Requirements of Railway Undertakings for the Implementation of European Rail Freight Corridors

6 - 7 c. For each bottleneck, identify: »» Type of bottleneck, ie technical or operational. Bottlenecks can »» Daily, weekly, yearly and seasonal be related to capacity, speed variations. Due to end user logistics restrictions, and technical constraints requirements, rail freight movements related to gauge, train length, lack are concentrated at certain periods of or changes in electrification, and of the day, week (particularly axle loads, particularly at borders. In Tuesdays and Fridays), and year the absence of true interoperability, (pre-Christmas and pre-summer in different technical and operational particular). Rail freight movements standards may necessitate trains tend to be concentrated at certain being recessed at borders, causing periods of the day, so while 50% of congestion at some marshalling the paths may be available over a yards and border crossings. For 24 hour period, certain hours will be example: saturated. For example: • On the French-Spanish border on • On RFC 2, sections of the Antwerp- RFCs 4 and 6 where trains can be Milan section are saturated at held for hours due to the need to certain times of the day particularly change , tranship wagons or evenings, but quiet at other times re-arrange train lengths of the day. Other saturated periods are experienced in Chiasso, Basel • On the Polish-German border at Bad RBF, Basel SBB RB frontier Frankfurt Oderbrucke on RFC 8, stations, as well as at many trains need to be recessed due terminals and marshalling yards to the different overhead supply

along the routes systems c ks u c tu r e B ottlene

• On RFCs linking deep-sea »» All lines and diversionary routes on maritime ports such as RFCs 1, each RFC (including those through 2, 3 and 8, density and timing other countries), connections of traffic depends on arrival and between the RFCs, and terminals departure times of ships, and may and marshalling yards result in concentrated rail freight »» Relative priorities and timescales for traffic flows over 2-3 days, followed those bottlenecks by nothing the following week. This will be affected by the state of »» Bottlenecks along the whole of the

the European economy and world corridor rather than by country. I nf r ast economies

Impact and consequences for the rail freight business if action is not taken

Accurate identification and description of bottlenecks allows the effective planning of mitigation works which will ensure that good reliability is delivered.

Reliability is one of the key factors used by freight customers in determining the choice of mode. If the service is unreliable, end user customers will use other modes, both in the short term during the disruption, and potentially over the long term. Relevance and importance

Freight trains on RFCs crossing the border for short distances into another country are usually subject to additional operational and technical requirements, such as those related to Safety Certificates and approvals, according to the national rules of that country and Europe. Part B of a Safety Certificate is dictated by the Interoperability Directives.

Before the implementation of the Safety and Interoperability Directives, special bi-national safety and operational agreements were established for short distance freight train movements across borders. These agreements defined the arrangements for allowing trains to operate under their own national rules or similar.

In the absence of true European interoperability, such flexibility for cross border operation is valuable for rail freight traffic efficiency and growth, and some have been newly established. For example,

„„The Polish-German agreement between the Polish and German governments of 14 November 2013 allows for cooperation between railway supervisory authorities, RUs and IMs on shared border traffic flows, for various initiatives including:

»» Mutual recognition of rail approvals, drivers’ licences and the qualifications of other railway staff

»» The possibility of operating rail traffic on cross-border lines on the basis of the other signatory’s national legislation, taking into account the technical and operational requirements of the IMs

„„The Dutch proposal for traffic across the border to Venlo which proposes that for the short distance operated in the Netherlands:

»» The driver does not need to speak fluent Dutch

»» The German licence is acceptable with knowledge of 3km track

Requirements of Railway Undertakings »» A Safety Certificate B issued by the for the Implementation of European Rail Freight Corridors German National Safety Authority is acceptable 8 - 9 »» Minor requirements imposed for track approval in addition to the German approval requirements

»» Sufficient train driver language knowledge to allow effective communication on safety relevant issues with the local train dispatcher

However, bilateral agreements are not in the spirit of true interoperability, and a network wide agreement, or extension of some of the existing Technical Standards for Interoperability (TSI) would be more appropriate.

Actions proposed Impact and ope r ability by RUs consequences oss-bo r de ) for the rail freight IMs, RUs and Transport business if action Ministries should: is not taken ( cr Develop a harmonised cross border agreement of safety and operational It is costly and complicated to conform rules for short distance rail freight with all national safety and operational transport in cooperation with RUs from requirements in another country when the respective countries for application only short distances are involved, across all the RFCs. This would build and where these requirements do not on best practice, while recognising and bring additional safety and operational modifying existing regulations such as benefits. These requirements can make the Operations TSI where relevant. In certain traffics, which may involve the absence of full interoperability RUs long end to end distances, financially consider this to be one of the most unviable and uncompetitive, for no important topics that need to be studied. safety or operational benefit. Such an agreement should allow: As the creation and use of a patchwork of a. Mutual recognition of driver individual different bilateral agreements qualifications would be a step backwards, RUs propose a network wide agreement. b. Cross-acceptance of the Safety Certificate Part B, which is the direction the European Railway Authority (ERA) is working towards c. Special permission to operate to a defined point near the border without fulfilling the conditions of the entire

Network Statement of a country I nte r y and O pe r ational d. Local common customs procedures e. Knowledge of the specific requirements at the border f. Signal boxes staffed with bi-lingual staff g. Defined, minimum knowledge of the language for the locomotive drivers h. Acceptance of with different [but compatible] Software-up- dates or versions r Regulato i. Working time regulations / rules on cross border routes j. Insurance amounts on cross border routes. Relevance and importance

In accordance with the Regulation, the IMs should publish the schedule for carrying out investment into bottlenecks and ensure that disruption is minimised.

Actions proposed by RUs

IMs should:

a. Refine and introduce measures to minimise disruption from infrastructure works, such as:

»» Targeted asset management

»» Efficient path allocation, which provides reliable and cost effective diversionary routes

»» Development of solutions including infrastructure replacement works for the whole RFC, such as:

• Reduction of speed restrictions in the vicinity of engineering works

• Increasing in the length of trains, loading gauge, gross train weight or axle load

• Introduction of 24h shift patterns rather than multiple shorter shifts where this facilitates traffic flows

»» Early efficient customer-oriented planning of the periods of those construction works along and between RFCs to avoid several construction sites having a multiple impact on train operation

»» Advance warning to RUs, both in advance of the preparation of the proposed catalogue paths for long term planning, and as far in advance as possible for short term construction works. This would enable RUs to adjust their own scheduling activities, alternative routes and costs, and ensure that the proposed diversionary rail routes are compatible with the end user customer requirements, and are cost effective. This is particularly important on busy routes. For Requirements of Railway Undertakings example, closure of the Brenner for the Implementation Pass in 2011 without adequate of European Rail Freight Corridors diversionary routes, caused significant disruption and cost to the 10 - 11 RUs and diversion to other modes. »» The size and repercussions of the planned works, and of the available b. Establish Coordination of remaining capacity on those routes Works working groups, already in and on diversionary routes place for RFC 1, for all RFCs, and incorporate a process for ensuring the »» The subsequent allocation of paths. exchange of best practice between c. Provide readily accessible information RFCs. In this way, IMs can engage

about construction works across all r ks wo RUs, who have the knowledge and

RFCs at FTE meetings, in regular u c tu r e understanding of their customers’ newsletters, and through dedicated requirements, during the planning representatives. process on: d. Define processes and timescales »» Proposed diversionary routes and for consultation and coordination of solutions, and: infrastructure works at the international • Ensure that they are practicable, level in the RNE and Forum Train appropriate for the end to end Europe (FTE) guidelines. path, reliable, cost-effective, and e. Ensure that published planned path in line with the end user customer diversions in advance are respected requirements. Recent good co- operation between IMs and RUs on f. Consider the impact of non-freight diversions from a further closure of infrastructure work on RFCs, such the Brenner Pass avoided a repeat as construction of the high speed line of disruptions mentioned above from Tours to Bordeaux on RFC 4

• Consider variation in track access g. Ensure that the planned works and charges to compensate RUs’ diversionary routes are adequately for additional costs caused by taken account of in the Transport diversionary routes Market Study.

• Give clarity on the capacity on RUs should: diversions and clarification of cross border path settlements. a. Define their involvement in the On RFC7, the alternative routes coordination of works for inclusion in proposed during reconstruction the RNE Guidelines. works at the Hungary-Romania b. Be invited to fully cooperate in border were also congested, and meetings with IMs, and provide expert consultation with RUs at an early customer oriented advice to minimise stage would avoid the planning of disruption caused by infrastructure such impractical diversions works.

»» Planned and unplanned maintenance of inf r ast Coo r dination or construction works »» National construction plans with Impact and consequences an impact on other sections of the

international corridor »» Operational planning around for the rail freight business if action is not construction works at an early stage, and in advance of capacity allocation. taken RUs could contribute effectively to A European railway network with harmonised infrastructure will be the debate, advising on: achieved more quickly with effective coordination and consultation with • Customer requirements and RUs along and across RFCs and the entire RFC network. Planned and unplanned expectations maintenance and construction works along and between RFCs must be undertaken as quickly and efficiently as possible to avoid: • Traffic levels „ • Technical requirements and „Long term diversion of traffic to other routes or other modes minimum train parameters „„Costly temporary alternative operational arrangements applicable for diversionary route „„Subsequent traffic lost to other modes. • Priorities and timing of works Relevance and importance

The specific objective of traffic management on the RFC is to ensure that sufficient priority is given to freight trains to achieve the planned punctuality targets, and ensure that freight trains which are “on time” can keep their path. This requires effective traffic management coordination between several IMs and management of performance monitoring along the end to end RFC.

Accurate knowledge about the traffic is the basis for taking correct traffic management decisions, both for RUs and IMs, and for preparing the operating procedures to be put in place in case of disruption. Standardisation of communication tools and procedures, as proposed in the RNE Guideline for Freight Corridor Traffic Management, is considered important for this, through improvement of existing systems and practices.

Actions proposed by RUs

Traffic management procedures are considered to be one of the most important topics to be improved. RFCs would benefit from “active” management on a corridor level, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and greater cooperation between IMs and RUs to ensure that end user customer requirements are met.

IMs should:

a. Engage with stakeholders including border stations, terminals managers and RUs at Terminal and Railway Advisory Groups in the development of communication flows.

b. Harmonise dispatching and operating rules, and data and systems along a corridor and between corridors. This will require a synopsis of all relevant regulation and processes of the respective IMs, which the Corridor One Stop Shop (C-OSS) has done for RFC 1 for example.

Requirements of Railway Undertakings c. Develop intelligent real time traffic for the Implementation of European Rail Freight Corridors management system, and consider contract management. 12 - 13 d. Introduce processes for the more match the train path timetables at efficient sharing of information to the border is one of the main issues avoid the need for RUs to inform IMs in traffic management. This needs to in each country, thereby optimising be covered in the Access contract available capacity. For example: and the freedom to exchange paths on a route is important, provided the »» On RFC 1, RUs must inform IMs ( TMP ) resources are available in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium for each flow. »» Provide continuous and easily accessible train running data e. Introduce harmonised guidelines for (current location), diversions and the coordination procedures following reasons for those diversions on a incidents both along and across o c edu r es single TIS system, as well as details corridors to ensure that trains are not of the remedial plan further delayed disproportionately. For example: »» Formulate common definitions for special trains/exceptional transport »» In the Netherlands, on RFCs 1, 2 and 9, where a 2 minute delay can »» Allow RUs a single entry for wagon result in a 24 hour delay in Germany. and load data for the end to end route. This is exacerbated by the use of The current draft of the Technical different identification numbers for Standards for Interoperability for the same train. In Germany, the Telematics Applications for Freight IM’s operational rules require that (TAF TSI) includes this as a train numbers and identification are requirement retained for the same train for a »» Distinguish between different minimum of 20 hours. RUs propose classes of freight traffic, including that such operational rules are premium traffic harmonised across Europe. »» Make reference to existing f. Improve elements of Traffic standards, such as UIC leaflets Information System (TIS): »» Harmonise translation tables from »» Record the reasons for delays for national system to TIS. Delay codes access by RUs and IMs in the case in particular need to be translated of performance regimes from national codes to codes defined »» Include information on national in UIC leaflet 450-2. trains, including feeder trains, where relevant

»» Give access to terminal management to: anagement Pr Tr affi c M anagement • provide them with advance notification of traffic arrivals and allow them to make the necessary Impact and consequences for the rail freight operational plans business if action is not taken • Ensure capacity is matched and Efficient harmonised traffic management procedures and systems are essential appropriate and the limited opening for the good performance of an international network, enabling short term ad hoc times, operating capabilities and requests to be met satisfactorily, and alternative solutions and routes to be found capacity at some terminals fit in following incidents within an acceptable timescale. with customer-friendly catalogue paths End to end reliability is one of the key factors which determine modal choice, and if a »» Communicate more effectively with satisfactory level of performance is not met, the end users will divert to alternative modes. the subsequent RU to facilitate Good performance along and between RFCs must be matched by availability of path and onward haulage. Missing procedural facilities at the end terminal, including potentially restrictive terminal operating hours. definitions for the handover at Improving TIS to allow train information to be more effectively and promptly communicated borders, and additional legal and to the following RU will: operational terms applicable at some borders (eg Emmerich on RFC 1), are „„Avoid congestion at border stations an issue for RUs when adapting their planning process for international „„Allow better coordination of resources trains, especially short term path „„Optimise the network capacity. requests and changes. Failure to Relevance and importance

Specific objectives for path allocation are to ensure smooth and efficient processes to obtain reliable train paths, making use of appropriate IT-tools.

In principle, PCS allows the seamless coordination of end to end international orders, i.e. a catalogue of pre-arranged end to end paths (PaP),

Simplification and improvements of train path processes and quality which generate additional rail freight traffic is required, with:

„„Quick and exhaustive transnational planning of the train paths in accordance with preset train paths at national level

„„Train paths with a minimum number of stops

„„Pre-arranged train paths taking into account construction works

The customer requires:

„„Speedy, clear and easy path allocation process

„„Good communication

„„Competitive price

„„Flexibility

Requirements of Railway Undertakings for the Implementation of European Rail Freight Corridors

14 - 15 not beconsidered asatransfer.” shall undertaking is notarailway which carrying outthebusinessofan applicant capacity by a railway undertaking when of capacity.further allocation Theuseof and shallleadtoexclusion from the be prohibited capacity shall infrastructure or service. undertaking Any tradingin transferred bytherecipienttoanother to anapplicant,itshallnotbe allocated by aninfrastructuremanager. Once “Infrastructure capacity shallbeallocated concerning capacityrightsstatesthat: 2012/38 38 ofDirective Article b. a. which should: be prepared, should a commonproposal problems andopenquestions,for which » » » is notdiscriminatorytowardsRUs. of for and useofpathswhich application definition common the roleandrights of AAs in the a Prepare remain someopenquestions: However,applicants. between there discriminatory allocationof paths andfairnon- for pathallocation, should providea transparent system the GuidelinesforCorridorOSS, and is setoutin priority value Annex 2of days. the The formulaforcalculating of PaPthe requested and running outflow with thelength paths) incombination and feeder (including path oftherequested the totallength timetable. annual These relateto allocate PaPs on an RFC for the for theC-OSSto are used criteria Review prioritycriteria.Basic » » » unclear. transport is relative topassenger transport to freight given Priority application? What priority isgivento the orderof a longerlengthofonetheRFCs? using than one more orlesspriority path usingpartoftwoRFCshave In particular,Luxembourg. doesa shorter pathsonsameRFCsfrom RFCs 1 and 2 have priorityover on and Hamburg from Rotterdam shorter routes. For example, paths against discriminate The criteria there remain a number of there remainanumber In practice however, by RUs Actions proposed d. c. should bethesameforboth. path requestedandimplementation The 8 for week requirement RUs between railway undertakings,namely: to be considered discriminatory forthe Board forcertaincorridorsis Managing The interpretationmadeby the » » » » » in thisway: of RFCs,and and futuredevelopment for themarket appropriate are which PCS through allocation and requests path international harmonised allow to processes efficient and Conditions and developcommon Terms and IMs between Improve coordination and feederroutes.Forexample: between asingleRFC, multiple RFCs of paths Improve coordination » » » » » requests for path required to giveinformation for RUs the deadlines Harmonise clearly laiddowntimetable a have which processes existing other in PCS,observing application status ofthepath contractual and Clarify theoperational allocation offeedernationalpaths. paths withthe of corridor allocation the of coordinating purpose (AB) forthe Bodies Allocation the C-OSStoworkwithIMs/ allows 2013/C 65/04 Decision of readingthesecondparagraph. for anapplicant. way This isanother using it for its own purposes andnot another railwayundertaking,asitis capacity cannot«transfer»itto A railway undertakingallocated meaning ofthesecondparagraph at its own discretion. This isthe undertaking railway another with canusethepath and theapplicant transfer »oftheallocatedcapacity, to bea« user isnotconsidered Specification of a railway undertaking network. rules ofeachindividual with theadministrative accordance in of thenetworks user oneach undertaking must specifytherailway An applicantallocatedcapacity

... Continued onthenext page Use ofath P Coordination System (PCS) ... Continued from previous page

»» Harmonise cancellation penalties to deter reservation of numerous paths which may not subsequently be used. There is no restriction on the number of applications which can be made, and no penalty for cancelling unused paths.

»» Harmonise cancellation penalties which incentivise RUs to release PaPs as soon as possible to allow other RUs to use them.

»» Allow international freight paths on capacity constrained routes to be available for domestic paths within a practical and commercial timescale

»» Harmonise terms and conditions of IMs for late request, short-term and ad-hoc. For example, short term requests for PaPs up to a week in advance should be possible to enable RUs to effectively match short term requests by customers

e. Establish a mechanism to ensure that PaPs and reserve capacity in the yearly timetable are:

»» Developed in line with customer requirements. RUs have highlighted that on some corridors reserve capacity may not be customer friendly, but an accumulation of disjointed available paths providing an end to end path which is not appropriate for the market. Paths of 27 hours between Rotterdam and Basel are not acceptable. When requested paths are not available, commercially attractive alternatives as close as possible to the original request should be automatically provided within a reasonable timescale. RUs recommend that IMs be obliged to provide them with commercially attractive alternatives within 15 days where initial path requests are not accepted

»» Made available to RUs within a reasonable timescale to enable them to consider possible alternative options

»» Kept up to date

»» Formulated taking into account the maintenance and construction work.

Requirements of Railway Undertakings for the Implementation of European Rail Freight Corridors

16 - 17 „ „ freight businessifactionisnottaken Impact andconsequencesfortherail i. h. g. f. „ Differences intermsandconditionsofIMsforadhoctrafficresultsin: a lossofbusinessandpotentialabsencenewbusiness. capacity willnotbemaximisednorperformanceimproved,resultingin consequence, to beofferedpath. foreachRFCratherthanaseamlessendtocatalogue As a rail freight traffic, will continue. In particular, a multiplicity of national paths will continue securing and regulating for organising, inadequate poor marketmechanisms, above, » » » » » » „ „ „ Difficulties inplanningandoperations andoperationalhandoverprocedures Non harmonisedpathoffers toRUs reinjected intheoverallcapacityreserve. PaPs are that unused a processtoensure Introduce running PaPsfromhavingpriorityoverotheron-timepaths. rulesto prevent late Develop clearnon-discriminatory Improve processforbookingPaPsby: need tobemadeindependentlyofthesystem. will system oftheRUs.Ininterim,requests the internal PCS and between systems, and ordering/management path Develop interfacesbetweenPCSandtherelevantnational requests path short-term for planning timetable border-crossing harmonised in Difficulties » » » » » » Developing definition of “real time” if there isanother there if organisation oftheIMresponsible. time” “real of definition Developing hoc definitionoftimetableupdateanddeadlines requests. path late Currently thereisnodifference betweenshorttermandad for definition common Developing requests outsideyearlytimetable and workproceduresfor Creating common path deadlines traffic ofpathsfordomestic how thesemayimpactonavailability pathsarePaPsand clarity onwhichcatalogue Providing the IMs handling ofandstatus Harmonising application of PaPs by combined inpracticalsub-sections Introducing amechanismto allow PaPsto be bookedand If PCS is not improved in line with customer requirements as indicated with customerrequirements in line If PCSisnotimproved interfaces. not ready,are interfaces If electronic manual to provide have IMswill training. software programmesandtherelative common timetabling through borders across operation efficient enable to RFCs between and between IMsalong is required Good coordination

Use ofath P Coordination System (PCS) Requirements of Railway Undertakings for the Implementation of European Rail Freight Corridors

18 - 19 Relevance and Actions proposed importance by RUs

The role of the C-OSS is Simplify the framework to unclear. Once paths have better define the role of the been allocated, the different IMs become C-OSS, and develop common operating, the contact points, rather than the single financial and administrative conditions C-OSS, and each IM has different and arrangements which would allow a operational and financial arrangements. single C-OSS to operate on an RFC. For example, penalty payments vary for unused paths, and invoices do not relate to the end to end path. C-OSS should have a role beyond simply allocating the path, such as contributing to the creation of a competitive product vis à vis other modes and gradually acting as a “single commercial window” for RUs.

Impact and consequences for the rail freight business if action is not taken

Failure to create such a framework will result in the continuation of the existing system characterised by a patchwork of different national situations. Seamless international rail freight flows along and across the efinition of the Role of the C- OSS D efinition of the Role RFCs, competitive with other modes in terms of price, technical, operational and structural efficiency, will not materialise. Relevance and importance

The Regulation foresees the establishment of a governance structure including an Executive Board, Management Board, and two Advisory Boards, for RUs and for terminals. RUs have the direct interface with the customers, and their input into the governance structure is vital to the efficient development of the Freight Corridors. Their deep understanding and knowledge of the end user customer requirements is necessary in:

„„The development of accurate forecasting of traffic in Transport Market Studies

„„Planning and modifications to PaPs and construction of market friendly diversionary paths as a result of infrastructure works

„„Formulation of TMPs, and the related unified and harmonised traffic management systems to allow information to be readily communicated to customers

„„The formulation of customer friendly catalogue PaPs which can compete with alternative modes, and components of the PCS

„„Standardisation of train parameters appropriate for the market, based on information about cost advantages of other modes operating with higher payloads in larger units and

„„Ensuring that the correct information is available and in the right format in Network Statements to enable RUs to collate and provide the relevant information customers to make commercial decisions on choice of mode

Requirements of Railway Undertakings for the Implementation of European Rail Freight Corridors

20 - 21 Actions proposed c. Establish IM and RU working groups on specific issues across all RFCs, by RUs and facilitate exchange of information In the absence of a and best practice in the findings of the framework for the working groups. For example functioning of the Advisory Board, the »» On RFC 2, RUs work with IMs at four RUs have proposed their own guidelines IM/RU working groups in the paper “Guidelines for the implementation of the Advisory boards • Infrastructure enhancements of RUs”. • Coordination of works

These guidelines propose that the • Infrastructure charges and RU Management Board should: costs a. Consult the Advisory Group of RUs • Cross border acceptance to border before taking decisions on strategic stations matters, and send the related Further working groups should be set documentation at least 2 months up for infrastructure bottlenecks and in advance for decisions that imply transport market studies. detailed scrutiny, particularly where they impact on RUs’ investments and d. Establish annual strategic discussion business, such as: between IMs and RUs on each RFC.

»» Corridor studies

»» Investment decisions I ssues ganisational

»» Priority rules and traffic management

»» Strategic allocation of capacity and Or the work of the OSS

»» Decisions linked to the works on the infrastructure

»» Quality of service on the corridor

»» Draft modifications of operating rules which affect RUs’ staff (safety, training) Impact and consequences for the rail freight Documentation relating to other decision and projects should be sent at least 2 business if action is not taken weeks in advance. If RUs’ views are not sufficiently taken into account, there is a high risk b. Include opinions and recommendations that systems and procedures are not developed in line with customer of the Advisory Group on the agenda requirements and traffic will divert to other modes, or simple not switch of the following Management Board to rail in the first place. Involvement of RUs in Management Boards allows their meeting, and invite the representative expertise and understanding of the client to be included in the development of certain of the Advisory Group to present aspects of efficient customer driven RFCs. and debate these at the meeting. Effective coordination between stakeholders for and across all corridors at the different Where the opinion is rejected, the governance levels is essential from a safety, operational and technical point of view, Management Board should provide to facilitate improved and harmonised capacity, interoperability and reliability required a written argument, which can be for growth in rail freight’s market share. In Great Britain, for example, the Network referred to the Executive Board where Code (in effect an annex to the Track Access Agreement) requires cooperation necessary. The Executive Board between the parties. should give an opinion within 30 days following receipt of this letter, and The objectives of the guidelines proposed by the RUs in the paper “Guidelines for the consultation with the representatives of implementation of the Advisory boards of RUs” are to: the Advisory Group and Management Board. Progress has been made on „„Improve the efficiency of the governance structure this, as the RUs’ representatives were „„Ensure a good, efficient and transparent consultation system invited to attend recent Management Boards of RFCs 1 and 2 to provide an „„Allow the regulation to be simultaneously implemented by the different corridor input on behalf of the RUs. structures in Europe. Relevance and importance

The Regulation promotes the harmonisation of infrastructure with the specific objectives to remove bottlenecks and to harmonise relevant parameters like train length, train gross weight, axle loads and loading gauges. Reference is also made to ERTMS and Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) corridors emphasising that interoperability is an essential feature of the RFCs.

Common parameters would make rail freight operations more seamless, cost effective and competitive, and enable more new entrants to enter the international markets in which different restrictions currently present an obstacle. Harmonised technical parameters such as train length and loading gauge reduce the need for specialised vehicles and procedures.

Requirements of Railway Undertakings for the Implementation of European Rail Freight Corridors

22 - 23 Actions proposed b. Allow some flexibility where this enhances the competitivity of rail by RUs over other modes. Evolving weights a. Harmonise minimum and dimensions in different modes technical standards along such as road and sea, such as high and across borders, in consultation cube trailers and containers should be with RUs, while considering more taken into account. cost effective options. Standard train c. Harmonise the parameters of the parameters should be applicable standard corridor paths across throughout the RFC and between and along RFCs, and define these RFCs, and a long-term, step-by-step parameters clearly in the Network upgrade to more generous parameters Statements. should also be considered. d. Gain support from national legal »» 740m train length (with locomotive) entities to help develop and implement should be the minimum length. these common parameters in line Longer trains raise RUs’ profitability with market demands and growth at low cost for the IMs, as highlighted segments. by a recent RFC1 study on this subject

»» PC70/P400 loading gauge to r amete s Tr ain pa accommodate high cube semi- trailers on piggyback wagons, and high cube containers on standard intermodal wagons, driven by the logistics industry. It can significantly boost the competitiveness of rail over road on a number of routes. Capacity on routes with P400, such as those through Italy and Switzerland is already saturated. CFL Cargo (Luxembourg RU) plan to start the operation of P400 trains between Bettembourg and Lyon

»» Wagon axle weight of 22.5 tonnes (25 tonnes for new build infrastructure if required). An increase in axle Impact and consequences for the rail freight load from 22.5 to 25 tonnes would business if action is not taken increase the payload by 14% , and most modern intermodal wagons are Weights and dimensions are driven by the customer and the logistics designed for 25 tonne axle loads industry, and must be accounted for to allow rail to match the additional efficiencies, and pay load advantages of competitive modes. Furthermore, »» Compliance with Trans-European different standards: Networks (TEN) Regulation is essential „„Are costly » » Deployment of ERTMS on all „„Require specific training designated lines of a corridor to allow an ERTMS-equipped locomotive to „„Pose additional safety risks operate along the principal routes „„Reduce flexibility and thereby limit the development of long distance international without needing to be equipped with traffic using the RFCs another safety system It is therefore in the interests of the IMs and RUs to agree on and introduce harmonised »» Improved harmonised timescales for minimum train parameters for the end to end journey of single RFCs and across the the implementation of the different entire RFC network. levels of ETCS to reduce the number of multiple systems operating in parallel, and the subsequent requirement for different locomotive types over a single RFC. Requirements of Railway Undertakings for the Implementation of European Rail Freight Corridors

24 - 25 Relevance and Actions proposed importance by RUs

IMs should include in their Develop a harmonised Network Statements all the Network Statement information about the corresponding structure for all RFCs end to end, RFCs, as a requirement of the including diversionary routes through Regulation, but there is no obligation other countries, to stimulate rail freight to have a single document providing traffic, by providing easy access to that operational and technical information information. The existence of consistent about the end to end infrastructure of and readily available public documents each RFC. Consequently, RUs wishing gives RUs greater transparency and to operate on a RFC must refer to the visibility of the procedures operations individual Network Statements for each and infrastructure charging in place. of the making up the This is necessary to enable all railway RFC. undertakings to operate a railway service competitive with other modes.

A single Network Statement covering the entire RFC network would enable progress towards creating a single “true One Stop Shop (OSS)”, which would be the single point of entry for all train operators planning corridor transport. It would allow a true corridor approach, in line with the long term objectives of the European Commission for full interoperability on the European railway network. H a r monised c o rr ido do ument

Impact and consequences for the rail freight business if action is not taken

Continuation of multiple Network Statements for each infrastructure of a RFC restricts the movement towards an interoperable pan-European railway network, and encourages the continuation of a network of multiple national railway networks. Requirements of Railway Undertakings for the Implementation of European Rail Freight Corridors

26 - 27 Harmonisation of parameters of access the r charges O

Pricing structures vary on each of national infrastructures, making it complicated for RUs to make an assessment of end to end pricing on a RFC. Harmonising the parameters for these pricing structures to take into account the corridor concept would allow RUs to more readily make business decisions about operating on those RFCs, and enable them to give their customers quotes within appropriate timescales, as their competitors do. This should be part of the development of single Network Statement for each RFC, and ultimately of a single Network Statement for the entire RFC.

Harmonised parameters to be considered include:

Cancellation costs (see also Section RFC websites 1.6.2), which vary for the different networks, and can sometimes limit capacity availability by discouraging IMs Easy access to the developments being made by the individual RFCs through specific from making available cancelled paths websites will allow a more effective exchange of experiences between stakeholders to other RUs at short notice and RFCs, and enable all stakeholders to be aware of the developments taking place towards implementation of the RFC. Examples of best practice in RFC developments A track access charge which and solutions should also be posted on the websites to allow them to be mirrored encourages the use of quieter wagons across all RFCs. and locomotives IMs should develop and implement extranet RFC websites with links to the other RUs would welcome steps by IMs to RFCs, ensuring inclusion of examples of best practice to allow these to be mirrored harmonise elements of the pricing across the whole RFC. system, making the prices more transparent and commercial, and to This will allow stakeholders, including the European Commission, Ministries reconsider those charges which limit the of Transport, IMs, RUs and terminal management to update themselves on growth of rail freight traffic. developments and contribute to the development of the RFC, and in the long term to the development of a single RFC. A clear and unique logic for naming these RFC websites, as well as ensuring their availability on the internet, is also required. Conclusion

The development of RFCs will help to stimulate international rail freight traffic by progressing towards simplified and harmonised conditions for gaining access to international routes, replacing a multiplicity of different technical and operating standards currently applicable in each national IM. This will make rail more efficient and cost effective and enable it to compete with other modes, thus stimulating a transfer of freight to rail, in line with the European Commission’s environmental objectives.

However, faster progress with these Close involvement of the RUs who have c. Close cooperation between IMs, with aims is required to implement the a deep understanding of the end user support from other stakeholders, to provisions of the Regulation within the customers’ requirements, and good build an efficient railway infrastructure stated deadlines. To facilitate this, and cooperation between all stakeholders and create systems which allow enable the objectives of the Regulation including terminal management from the allocation of customer friendly to be achieved, RUs have provided for an early stage is important. This is reliable paths for everyday operation this report a list of the most important relevant for a range of aspects including and well planned diversionary routes topics which need to be studied to: the formulation of customer friendly during maintenance, construction and PaPs, traffic management systems, modernisation works. „„Improve processes and coordination harmonisation of procedures and d. A process to ensure that lessons are between IMs diversionary routes. This will result in shared and learnt across all RFC in a RFC network which is tailored to the „„Enhance fair and efficient capacity terms of the development of efficient requirements of the customers, in terms allocation methodologies, processes and of price, reliability and flexibility, and systems, allowing best practice to be „„Allow greater technical and operational enable rail to compete with other modes. interoperability. exchanged as a matter of course. b. Harmonisation across the whole RFC Particularly significant for all the The development of an efficient and network and between RFCs, and common priority topics for the effective customer friendly railway network is harmonised technical, operational development and implementation of the possible through strong stakeholder and administrative rules and systems RFCs are: engagement, harmonisation of technical across all corridors end to end will and operating systems and standards. a. Stakeholder engagement between contribute to interoperability and The development of reliable paths is provide an efficient, interoperable essential to enable the rail sector to »» Transport ministries and seamless environment in which be competitive and thereby generate »» Transport operators (partly RUs) and rail can compete effectively with a growth in rail freight traffic. Failure IMs, other modes. Framework conditions to progress the aspects set out in this between the different corridors should report will jeopardise the competitive »» IMs and RUs be harmonised as much as possible. position of the railways and future growth of rail freight, allowing traffic to increase on less environmental modes.

Requirements of Railway Undertakings for the Implementation of European Rail Freight Corridors

28 - 29 “the Regulation” Interfleet T TAF TSI CCCom ER C-OSS TEN-T TMP TMS R RNE OSS TEN ERA CER TAG RFC PCS FTE CFL Pa UIC TSI TIS RU AG AB AA IM P International UnionofRailways Technical Standards forInteroperability Traffic ControlCentresCommunication Traffic ManagementProcedures Train InformationSystem Regulation (EU)No913/2010of22September2010 Trans-EuropeanTransport Networks Trans-European Networks TerminalGroup Advisory Applications forFreight Technical StandardsforInteroperability Telematics Railway Undertaking RailNetEurope Rail FreightCorridor Group Rail Advisory Path CoordinationSystem Pre-arranged Path One StopShop Interfleet Technology Ltd Infrastructure Manager Forum TrainEurope European Rail Traffic ManagementSystem Agency Railway European Chemins deFerLuxembourgeois Corridor OneStopShop Infrastructure Managers Community ofEuropeanRailwaysand Allocation Body Authorised Applicant

Glossay ofr Abbreviationsonyms and Acr Topic Principal Actions Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Transport Market Establish working group to discuss forecasts and quality of studies Studies Develop a common transport modelling approach Infrastructure Establish working groups Bottlenecks Regulatory and Operational Develop a harmonised cross border agreement Interoperability Coordination of Introduce specifc measures to minimise disruption from infra works Infrastructure Establish working groups Works Define process for consultation and coordination of infra works Harmonise dispatching and operating rules, data and systems Develop intelligent real time traffic management system Introduce process for the more efficient sharing of information TMP Introduce harmonised guidelines for the coordination procedures following incidents both along and across corridors Harmonise train number identification rules used in Germany Improve elements of TIS Improve coordination between the IMs to ensure that PaPs are published in PCS as end to end paths Review priority criteria Common definition of the role and rights of AAs in the application for and use of path Improve coordination of paths between a single RFC, multiple RFCs and feeder routes Develop common Terms and Conditions PCS Harmonise cancellation penalties Establish a mechanism to ensure that the PaPs and reserve capacity are developed in line with customer requirements Introduce regs for IMs to provide alternatives within 15 days Develop interfaces PCS/national path ordering/management systems/RU internal systems Improve process for booking PaPs Develop rules to prevent late running PaPs having priority over on-time paths Definition of the Simplify framework to define role of the C-OSS, and develop common operating and financial Role of the C-OSS conditions and arrangements Seek representation at the Management and Executive Boards Organisational Establish IM and RU specific working groups across all RFCs Issues Establish annual strategic discussion IM CEO/RU CEO on each RFC 740m train length 1500m in long term Train Parameters PC70/P400 loading gauge 22.5 tonnes wagon axle weight (25 tonnes - new build infra) Define these parameters clearly in the Network Statements Harmonised Harmonised approach to Network Statements for each RFC Corridor Single Network Statement for entire RFC network Management Harmonisation of Harmonise pricing paramaters eg cancellation and noise Access Charges RFC Websites Develop extranet RFC websites with links to the other RFCs Milestones Major, for review of general progress Workplan

Topic Principal Actions Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Transport Market Establish working group to discuss forecasts and quality of studies Studies Develop a common transport modelling approach Infrastructure Establish working groups Bottlenecks Regulatory and Operational Develop a harmonised cross border agreement Interoperability Coordination of Introduce specifc measures to minimise disruption from infra works Infrastructure Establish working groups Works Define process for consultation and coordination of infra works Harmonise dispatching and operating rules, data and systems Develop intelligent real time traffic management system Introduce process for the more efficient sharing of information TMP Introduce harmonised guidelines for the coordination procedures following incidents both along and across corridors Harmonise train number identification rules used in Germany Improve elements of TIS Improve coordination between the IMs to ensure that PaPs are published in PCS as end to end paths Review priority criteria Common definition of the role and rights of AAs in the application for and use of path Improve coordination of paths between a single RFC, multiple RFCs and feeder routes Develop common Terms and Conditions PCS Harmonise cancellation penalties Establish a mechanism to ensure that the PaPs and reserve capacity are developed in line with customer requirements Introduce regs for IMs to provide alternatives within 15 days Develop interfaces PCS/national path ordering/management systems/RU internal systems Improve process for booking PaPs Develop rules to prevent late running PaPs having priority over on-time paths Definition of the Simplify framework to define role of the C-OSS, and develop common operating and financial Role of the C-OSS conditions and arrangements Seek representation at the Management and Executive Boards Organisational Establish IM and RU specific working groups across all RFCs Issues Establish annual strategic discussion IM CEO/RU CEO on each RFC 740m train length 1500m in long term Train Parameters PC70/P400 loading gauge 22.5 tonnes wagon axle weight (25 tonnes - new build infra) Define these parameters clearly in the Network Statements Harmonised Harmonised approach to Network Statements for each RFC Corridor Single Network Statement for entire RFC network Management Harmonisation of Harmonise pricing paramaters eg cancellation and noise Access Charges RFC Websites Develop extranet RFC websites with links to the other RFCs Milestones Major, for review of general progress January 2014 ISBN: 978-2-7461-2248-2 Contact: [email protected] Interfleet Technology of19DecemberforUIC by UIC onthebasisofreportby Prepared

Design: Marina Grzanka

Requirements ofU ndeRailwaytakingsr for the Implementationopean of Eur Rail Freight Corridors